Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

With your Shetlink login details, all classifieds, private messages, and invoices are now accessed through the new Njord | Market system. Please see Njord | Market FAQ for more details.

Photo

The Crazy World of SIC Finances


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2220 posts

Posted 24 May 2016 - 09:43 PM

http://www.shetnews....ver-be-repeated

 

Says it all really..  £14m for 2 tugs which they then sold for £7m and, they still claim that they made a profit of £70,000 when, in fact, they made a loss of £7m.

 

OK, they have included revenue of £7m into the process and used it to offset the capital costs but, they are no better off and, if the vessels had been "fit for purpose", they would have made (on paper anyway) an operating profit of £7m.

 

In fairness, the report seems to have indicated that there was a complete hierarchy of "arrogant numpties" involved in the whole process but, I wonder if any have been sacked or, if anything will ever really change?

 

 


  • north, Claadehol, George. and 1 other like this

#2 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9206 posts

Posted 24 May 2016 - 11:11 PM

^ The grapevine suggests that the rats left the sinking ship before they were pushed off it, and boarded the "enemy's" ones, where they were welcomed. As seems to happen an awful lot with "officials" of our local government, especially those whose work bring them in to regular contact with oilies.

 

Look on the bright side though, at least they didn't have to pay someone to take them off their hands, as looked likely for the first part of their lives.

 

If there ever was the perfect argument for Sullom harbour services to be leased out to the highest competent bidder to provide them on behalf of the SIC as port authority, this must be it. I have a hunch that with such an arrengement that they would soon be profitable enough that the operator made a decent income from them, and would pay the SIC a decent price for the opportunity to do so. Letting the SIC near any kind of commercial venture is its death knell, they should stick to what they can do, the public services that have no commercial element attached, like the essy kert, and sanding and ploughing blocked roads.


  • north likes this

#3 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2220 posts

Posted 25 May 2016 - 05:19 AM

^ The grapevine suggests that the rats left the sinking ship before they were pushed off it, and boarded the "enemy's" ones, where they were welcomed. As seems to happen an awful lot with "officials" of our local government, especially those whose work bring them in to regular contact with oilies.

Yes, the "rewards for failure" culture within local authorities has never ceased to amaze me.. Where else is gross incompetence so richly rewarded?  Try loosing £7m of a private businesses money and see what you get..  Sacked at least with the distinct probability of being "unemployable" within your chosen field and, possibly, a nasty court case as well...

 

Strange thing is that Ports and Harbours appears(?) to have been moderately succesful through the years.  I wonder if this is "despite" rather than "because" of the people in charge? 

 

Leasing out port operations to a private company is dangerously close to being a "commercial" venture and, I wouldn't bet against them screwing that up as well.. 

 

Let's face it, the people who are capable of running a business are already out there doing it whilst, the "wannabees" (within the SIC) who think they can do it, are sitting in nice comfortable offices happily spending someone else's money.  They have no real incentive to get it right. 


  • north, Claadehol, George. and 1 other like this

#4 Claadehol

Claadehol

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 257 posts

Posted 25 May 2016 - 05:15 PM

There's little one can add to what's been said here, previous posts have summed it all up rather well.

 

This kind of debacle will be repeated again and again, despite what's been said.

 

Noone is ever accountable.

 

Sadly!


  • north, tooney1 and concerned shetlander like this

#5 whalsa

whalsa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 25 May 2016 - 08:40 PM

There's little one can add to what's been said here, previous posts have summed it all up rather well.

This kind of debacle will be repeated again and again, despite what's been said.

Noone is ever accountable.

Sadly!


You are right, it makes for depressingly accurate reading. One of the central ideas of Wir Shetland is to allow the formation of a new Government with safeguards in place to make people accountable to the electorate.

It will not be easy but with the power to make our own laws we could tailor make a system to suit our unique needs and avoid expensive mistakes like this.
  • Colin and George. like this

#6 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2220 posts

Posted 26 May 2016 - 06:47 AM

I think that true accountability went out the window with Malcolm Green's demise.

 

OK, the man was widely despised(?) and feared(?) but, he was capable of making "hard" decisions (sacked the head of Housing if my memory serves me correctly) and ran a "tight ship".

 

Since then, the only person we have had who was anywhere near capable of similar actions, was himself sacked/resigned for (allegedly) threatening to forcibly put a particular councillors teeth down his throat.

 

It's "tough at the top" and, we need "tough" men to make things work properly.


  • concerned shetlander likes this

#7 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1377 posts

Posted 26 May 2016 - 09:51 AM

The only reason that the S.I.C have been able to flog the boats off at such a sale price is because they each got a pair of inflatable armbands as part of their Christmas bonus - unlike all the pensioners who used to get a Christmas bonus from the Charitablt Trust, nee S.I.C, but don't now as the givers and takers have decided to keet it all for themselves.


  • Bravetwin likes this

#8 north

north

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 27 May 2016 - 09:07 AM

Another SIC marine fiasco, not the first involving boats is it?

 

And once again it demonstrates all the traits of a typical Government contracting disaster. The contracting process is so so fraught with irrelevant rules and even more irrelevant stakeholders, that by the time the committee completes its designated task, it has been over-run with people who couldn't tell one of a boat from the other. And then they wonder why the whole thing fails?

Because they are a bunch of stupid fools, following stupid rules, led by stupid people. I wonder if anyone involved the crews that operate them to participate in the process?

 

I am wholly reminded of this song written by Gibbie fae Sudderland.

 

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
And I polished up the handle of the big front door.

Chorus.
He polished up the handle of the big front door.


I polished up that handle so carefullee
That now I am the Ruler of the SIC's Navee!

Chorus.
He polished up that handle so carefullee,
That now he is the ruler of the SIC's Navee!


As office boy I made such a mark
That they gave me the post of a junior clerk.
I served the writs with a smile so bland,
And I copied all the letters in a big round hand.
Chorus.
He copied all the letters in a big round hand.


I copied all the letters in a hand so free,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Chorus.
He copied all the letters in a hand so free,
That now he is the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

In serving writs I made such a name
That an articled clerk I soon became;
I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit
For the pass examination at the Institute.

Chorus.
For the pass examination at the Institute.


That pass examination did so well for me,
That now I am the Ruler of the SIC's Navee!

Chorus.
That pass examination did so well for he,
That now he is the Ruler of the SIC's Navee!


Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.

Chorus.
Was the only ship that he ever had seen.

But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the ruler of the SIC's Navee!

Chorus.
But that kind of ship so suited he,
That now he is the ruler of the SIC's Navee!

I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.

Chorus.
He never thought of thinking for himself at all.


I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the SIC's Navee!

Chorus.
He thought so little, they rewarded he
By making him the Ruler of the SIC's Navee

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule.

Chorus.
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule.


Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the SIC's Navee!


Chorus.
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the SIC's Navee!

 


  • concerned shetlander likes this

#9 Ian_H

Ian_H

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 27 May 2016 - 04:10 PM

Taking two steps back to look at the bigger picture, it is that the Council (that is the Councillors) decided that three tugs were enough, and would reduce the number of staff needed. That required more powerful tugs and two new ones were bought.

 

A new Council was elected, they decided to keep the old four tug set up. So the bigger, more powerful, more expensive to run tugs were no longer needed and were sold.

 

 Yes, it seems the process getting them should have been done better, but what really cost the money was buying them, having a change of mind, then selling them virtually unused. Try doing that with a new car and see how much of your money you get back, boats are no different.



#10 whalsa

whalsa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 332 posts

Posted 27 May 2016 - 04:20 PM

^^^ Am I not correct in thinking that the idea of having only three tugs was never going to be workable due to some regulations? Possibly MCA?

I remember hearing this somewhere.



#11 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9206 posts

Posted 27 May 2016 - 07:03 PM

Taking two steps back to look at the bigger picture, it is that the Council (that is the Councillors) decided that three tugs were enough, and would reduce the number of staff needed. That required more powerful tugs and two new ones were bought.

 

A new Council was elected, they decided to keep the old four tug set up. So the bigger, more powerful, more expensive to run tugs were no longer needed and were sold.

 

 Yes, it seems the process getting them should have been done better, but what really cost the money was buying them, having a change of mind, then selling them virtually unused. Try doing that with a new car and see how much of your money you get back, boats are no different.

 

Conveniently overlooking the fact they had some pretty serious "design flaws", the crews (allegedly) couldn't stand them, and (allegedly) had been denied input in their creation.

 

Yes, no argument, folk chopping and changing their minds about what they want and what they're going to use can be damn expensive, but you have to wonder why that chopping and changing occured.

 

*If* the jungle drums know anything, "somebody" somewhere behind a desk in P&H set their heart on getting those two boats, and "sold" the idea with so much b/s and hyperbole to the Council a dodgy Estate Agent would have been embarrassed by it, and unfortunately true to form the majority on the Council dis what they do best, rubber stamped what they were told to rubber stamp, without bringing even one brain cell out to play, and the rest is history. We ended up with two not fit for purpose boats the Council didn't know what to do with, just the same as we ended up with one not fir for purpose boat when they first tried to build a boat for Foula back in the 90's - the crew and users were ignored then too, as some stuffed shirt snake oil salesman with a silvery tongue managed to convince the Council he "knew best".

 

Yes, the Council should be the dead man's hand that blocks such little despots getting carried away with their "pet projects", but we don't have it, and haven't had it for 25 years - Too many Councillors have been too well trained by "Officials" to do anything but what officials tell them to, for the few Councillors who can see how the game is being played to get enough backup to kick the "Officials" arses that desperately need a good kicking.


  • thebfg likes this

#12 Da Burra Shop

Da Burra Shop

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 27 May 2016 - 09:44 PM

I think that true accountability went out the window with Malcolm Green's demise.

 

OK, the man was widely despised(?) and feared(?) but, he was capable of making "hard" decisions (sacked the head of Housing if my memory serves me correctly) and ran a "tight ship".

 

Since then, the only person we have had who was anywhere near capable of similar actions, was himself sacked/resigned for (allegedly) threatening to forcibly put a particular councillors teeth down his throat.

 

It's "tough at the top" and, we need "tough" men to make things work properly.

That'll be the same Malcolm Green that negotiated away wir income fae Sullom Voe. BP made a right fool of him or he made a right fool a wis.


Edited by Da Burra Shop, 27 May 2016 - 09:45 PM.


#13 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9206 posts

Posted 05 February 2019 - 02:05 PM

Its slightly heartening to see at least some elected members appear to be finally catching on as to a little that ails our Council, and the very strange and unbelievable world in which Council officials inhabit.

 

https://www.shetnews...X8FCagGxqLiDU-I

 

Only a public body could convince themselves and try to justify spending an extra £31,200 (not including (wo)man hours, admin costs etc) while they decided what was 'best value' to buy, was in some way 'best value'.

 

Boys, your £150,000 dumper maybe 'represented best value', had it been bought immediately, but doesn't the fact it actually cost the Council an absolute minimum £181,200 as a result of 'dithering' render that claim disingenuous, if not completely false, and as such, null and void. A sizeable chunk of this went down on Maggie's watch an all if I'm not mistaken, lets just hope she's slightly sharper in her CEO chair than in her former post.


Edited by Ghostrider, 05 February 2019 - 02:08 PM.